(George Altman, Washington Bureau)Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour testifies before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Thursday. Barbour said BP PLC was more helpful than the federal government during some parts of the oil spill cleanup effort.

"Sometimes, the federal government is not the easiest group to do business with," Barbour said. "In fairness to BP ... everything we asked them to do, they considered, and almost every time, they did."

Barbour also repeatedly urged lawmakers on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform to send what could be billions in fine money as a result of the spill to the affected Gulf states and allow that money to be used to aid economic recovery.

Committee members spent much of the Thursday morning meeting debating the Obama administration’s energy policy.

Republicans argued that new regulations put in place after the spill are unnecessary, slowing the process of approving new drilling projects and costing jobs in the oil industry. Democrats countered that the additional rules are needed to avoid a repeat of the Gulf oil spill.

Rep. Steven Palazzo, R-Biloxi, introduced Barbour at the hearing and criticized the Obama administration for its "thoughtless decision" to institute a moratorium on new drilling in the months after the oil spill. The moratorium was lifted in October, but many Republicans contend that approval of new permits is now coming too slowly and will jeopardize future oil production.

"A loss of production of this magnitude will continue to have a negative impact on the Gulf Coast’s economy for years to come," Palazzo said.

Republicans claim administration wanted to push up gas costs

View full sizeMichael Bromwich, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, testifies before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Thursday, June 2, 2011. Bromwich defended Obama administration energy policy, saying stricter regulations are needed to prevent a repeat of the Gulf oil spill. (Press-Register/George Altman)

Barbour and other Republicans maintained Thursday that — beyond aiming to simply increase offshore drilling safety — limitations put in place by the Obama administration are intended to increase the cost of fossil fuels, thus promoting renewable energy sources.

"There is no such effort, and there has never been any such effort" related to offshore drilling, said Michael Bromwich, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal government’s new regulatory agency for water-borne drilling.

Bromwich, who also testified before the committee Thursday, and Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., noted that domestic oil production has actually increased under the Obama administration, as compared to the Bush administration.

While he largely agreed with fellow Republicans in Thursday’s hearing, Barbour backed Democrats on a few points, including support for oil companies being forced to pay adequate royalties to state and federal governments to be allowed to drill.

"For more than 50 years, the rest of the country has been sucking the Gulf dry, and we get nothing," Barbour said.

He refrained from harshly criticizing the Gulf Coast Claims Facility, led by Ken Feinberg, saying: "I think they are trying to do a good job. We don’t get many complaints in Mississippi."

The governor was less appreciative of the federal government’s efforts after the oil spill, saying officials who sought to control the response efforts violated his state’s rights, as well as the U.S. Constitution, and also performed poorly. The Coast Guard was unable to manage basic communication among responders, he added.

"We literally sent people to Walmart to buy radios," Barbour said.

Barbour on Thursday joined public officials from Alabama in calling for Clean Water Act fine money to be sent to the Gulf’s affected states, without restrictions limiting it to only environmental uses.

Congress has yet to agree on how to direct the fines, which could total between $5.4 billion and $21.1 billion. Leaders in Alabama have expressed concern that Louisiana could get the lion’s share of the money if it can only be used for environmental restoration.

"Thus far, environmental damage for us — now we’re different from Louisiana — has been very minimal," Barbour said. "Our issue is the ... gigantic economic loss."